George Lucas ironically also had a pretty passionate defense against colorization of older films.

Generally i'm not big on 3-D, there have been some films that used it well(Drive Angry, Resident Evil: Afterlife and Retribution) but most are done with little thought(Darkest Hour). Never really likd Wizard Of Oz, but can understand people being pissed about the conversion.

Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:55 pm

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

Perhaps The Wizard of Oz doesn't have enough passionate advocates to raise a significant outcry. Not that it's not a well-loved movie, but in my experience, it's a movie that is moderately loved by many, rather than a movie that is intensely loved by a more dedicated crowd.

Ah, well. 3D is just the latest in a long line of trends that have been milked by the entertainment industry as quickly and ferociously as possible, leaving the udders shriveled and chapped. Maybe this is crass, but I feel like it is a uniquely American problem that our successful strategies are treated in such a way. The moment they prove they can make money is the moment their days are numbered.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:57 pm

BrianB

Gaffer

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:41 amPosts: 28Location: Alabama

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

I have absolutely no love for 3D. Admittedly, Avatar was pretty impressive the first time, as a novelty, but I wouldn't watch it that way again (if at all). I've also seen Beowulf and Prometheus in 3D and on both occasions I immediately regretted it. The image is too dim, too blurry, distracting, headache-inducing. It's something I feel like I have to fight against to get to the real image. Never again. It would be a win for The Movies if it was completely abandoned.

Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:21 pm

ck100

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 pmPosts: 218

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

My complaint about 3D is that I don't see how some movies could really benefit from it. Unless you have a number of shots that have something flying toward the camera, then it's pretty useless. How would a movie like The Godfather or Casablanca benefit from 3D?

Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:34 pm

ck100

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 pmPosts: 218

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

This may be off-topic, but what's the difference between 3D converting an old film and having a director go back and make changes to their film (a la George Lucas and the Star Wars films)? I mean which is the worse case of vandalism?

Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:36 pm

ck100

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 pmPosts: 218

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

A form of colorization actually does occur today. You ever notice how some movies, action films in particular, have a teal and orange look to them? I've noticed that some older films, from the 80's and 90's in particular, have their color timing changed for Blu-ray in particular to have a more teal and orange look. I don't know if this is done with permission from the filmmakers, but I don't know why the color timing all of the sudden needs to be changed after so many years.

Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:04 pm

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

ck100 wrote:

This may be off-topic, but what's the difference between 3D converting an old film and having a director go back and make changes to their film (a la George Lucas and the Star Wars films)? I mean which is the worse case of vandalism?

My position is this: if the untouched version is still available, then the changed versions can be whatever craziness the filmmakers want them to be.

In the case of Star Wars, there was sort of a half-assed release for the original versions on DVD, so I guess I can tolerate it. But I'll be exceedingly happy when Disney inevitably realizes that there's a million billion dollars to be had by doing a super deluxe release of Star Wars sans modifications.

ck100 wrote:

A form of colorization actually does occur today. You ever notice how some movies, action films in particular, have a teal and orange look to them? I've noticed that some older films, from the 80's and 90's in particular, have their color timing changed for Blu-ray in particular to have a more teal and orange look. I don't know if this is done with permission from the filmmakers, but I don't know why the color timing all of the sudden needs to be changed after so many years.

That's how a commercially viable film looks nowadays. Even if there's not really any raison d'etre for any use of blue and teal before or after O Brother, Where Art Thou. Bah.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

This may be off-topic, but what's the difference between 3D converting an old film and having a director go back and make changes to their film (a la George Lucas and the Star Wars films)? I mean which is the worse case of vandalism?

I think the point was made that if the director is alive and handles the conversion, then they can help ensure that their intent / vision is propagated through the conversion. But in the case of the Wizard of Oz, all of the creators are no longer here, so the conversion process is unlikely to capture their intent.

Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:35 pm

qbert

Gaffer

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:57 pmPosts: 23

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

Quote:

And tinkering with established masterpieces isn't a shining example of intelligence and restraint.

It feels like we live in a world where intelligence and restraint are constantly punished by the mass market. You always hear "too smart" or "not big enough" leveled as criticisms. Ultimately, the 3D fad may just fade into obsolescence through disinterest, but I fear what the next money-grabbing fad which strives to replace it will do.

Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:40 pm

mrguinness

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 amPosts: 384Location: NJ

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

qbert wrote:

but I fear what the next money-grabbing fad which strives to replace it will do.

Smell-o-vision

Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:07 pm

Firedrake

Gaffer

Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:52 amPosts: 22

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

To me the problem with a post-production 3D conversion is closely analogous to that of colourisation, but for a different reason. In both cases, the addition of colour and the addition of 3D, the visual language of film needs to change in order to make sense in the new medium. For colour this is relatively minor; you could shot-for-shot remake a B&W film in colour (and many people did). But a scene that made sense in 2D may well not work in 3D, and vice versa.

I believe it is incumbent on critics reviewing 3D films to mention whether the film was made for, or merely converted to, 3D. The studios certainly won't give out this information!

Mon Sep 30, 2013 2:40 pm

CasualDad

Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pmPosts: 657

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

I saw that there was an anniversary edition of The Wizard of Oz playing, but didn't notice that it was in 3-D. Haven 't seen much advertising for it and am not even sure how many are aware it's out there, much less that its 3-D. Maybe that's why there is not much discussion and consternation. True fans may be just happy with the opportunity to see it on the big screen.

I'm not fond of the current 3-D process and don't feel it adds any particular value. I don't hate it or view it as cinematic rape, but I'd rather leave old movies alone.

Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:18 pm

slksc

Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:52 pmPosts: 274Location: North Carolina

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

I well remember the early 80's when Ted Turner's colorization fad was a hot topic. I have to be honest: at the time, I thought it wasn't a bad idea if it allowed younger viewers to appreciate older films they wouldn't see in B&W. But then I saw the horrendous results. Every colorized movie looked horrible. It's a Wonderful Life remains the stereotype of a great film ruined by colorization.

But at least there seemed to be a rational reason for doing it back then. Today, the addition of 3D to Oz just seems like a stupid idea. I've never been a big fan of Oz, so it doesn't affect me much, but if this makes money, then God help us when they make 3D Citizen Kane. Rosebud in 3D: wouldn't that be great?

Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:46 am

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

Citizen Kane is already the most 3D movie ever made. And it all happens in your brain, without the need for the modern film industry's silly popup book effects.

But you make a fine point. Is there anyone on Earth who needs 3D or any other added effect to charm them into watching The Wizard of Oz?

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:02 am

Firedrake

Gaffer

Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:52 amPosts: 22

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

Ken wrote:

Is there anyone on Earth who needs 3D or any other added effect to charm them into watching The Wizard of Oz?

One might reasonably ask: is there any evidence that people have been swayed into seeing classic films by colourisation? I'm old enough that I remember most people having black and white televisions, so this is particularly a request to people to whom B&W hasn't been part of their daily lives: is it really off-putting in itself? Or is it off-putting because it's a sign that this is an old film, probably slow-moving and without much in the way of what a modern film would call action or excitement or romance?

Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:13 am

slksc

Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:52 pmPosts: 274Location: North Carolina

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

Ken wrote:

Citizen Kane is already the most 3D movie ever made. And it all happens in your brain, without the need for the modern film industry's silly popup book effects.

You're absolutely right; the depth of the cinematography is almost like 3D.

Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:25 am

Dragonbeard

Gaffer

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:10 pmPosts: 42

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

I really cannot stand the phrase "Digital IMAX". It should be removed from existence.

The B&W/Colour issue happens in photography too. People think that you can take colour images and just convert them to B&W afterwards. Doesn't work that way at all

Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:29 pm

MGamesCook

Producer

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pmPosts: 2050

Re: September 29, 2013: "The Vandalism of 3-D"

Cinema, inevitably, is largely the art of making things look really good. But this has to be done with lighting and cinematography. 3D has proven time and again that it is not really a facet of cinematography at all. It's something completely different and really doesn't belong in any serious discussion regarding craft or visuals.

Isn't there an expression something along the lines of: you're only good at the game if you play by the rules. Anyone can invent their own rules and claim that they're good at their own game. That's what Cameron did with Avatar. Harder to make a movie where the craft is objectively great, which is what Orson Welles did with Citizen Kane. Welles took the same tools which had been used for every other movie and just used them in a different, more creative way.

For me, Avatar is not a movie. My definition of a movie, a live action movie, is one where on-set lighting is responsible for visual beauty. That aspect is just as important having a good screenplay and good actors. It's just what filmmaking is, and always has been.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum